Ethical DIlemma (not mine, G-d willing!)

[bublik64]

Got this from september_05http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15730874/wid/11915773?GT1=8717Read more... )

Comments

[angerona]

When all's said and done and argued, it feels like you just tried to start a flame war, because the recommendation in fact says:

"The Nuffield Council, which considers ethical questions raised by advances in medical care, also recommended that babies born between 22 and 23 weeks should not usually receive intensive care unless parents make a request and doctors agree."

http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/news/0,,1948464,00.html

[angerona]

And the article you yourself link to specifically says:

"In guidelines issued to help doctors and parents make difficult decisions about the care of extremely premature infants, the report recommended parents of babies born after 23 should be consulted and have the final say in whether intensive care is given to their baby."

How is "should be consulted" at all like "and the parents should not even be given a choice about it?"

I guess I'll know in the future to not trust your interpretation of things and actually read the article for myself.

[aite]

I think you are being a bit unfair. There is nothing to flame about here. Maybe the costs, possibly, but they weren't initially brought up by bublik64. You are citing the recommendations for 22-23 weekers. She and some others are bothered by the guidelines that say no interventions for babies born before 22 weeks. As I mentioned a few times above, I think the reason for their discomfort is that 22 weeks sounds not that far from, say, 24 weeks, when chances of survival are about 50%. In fact, the difference between 22 and 24 weeks is significant and crucial. I admit I invited moretp into the discussion in part because bublik64 wouldn't take my word for it.

[angerona]

I don't know,she didn't mention anything about the particularities of the number of weeks. From what I read her argument to be, if the guidelines said "less than 10 weeks," she'd have the same issue.

[aite]

She cited 22 weeks in the post. The thing is, there is probably a small window when a preemie's life can be prolonged by interventions, but they most likely can't be saved. Before that they can't even be kept alive outside the womb by any means, so there is nothing to discuss.

[angerona]

I think I also got offended by her tone -- she was very rude in chiding Igor about quotes, for example, instead of responding to his points, which were reasoned.

[aite]

Well, they both often argue more aggressively than I am comfortable with. Even with someone like me... But especially with each other.

The complaint about quotes is not completely without merit because bublik64 felt igorlord was passing statements in quotes as her opinions.

[angerona]

She obviously didn't, since she began her complaint by saying that he was using quotes as italics. and then proceeded to give him a lecture on it in a really condescending tone.

[bublik64]

I was not responding to the recs for 23-weekers, but to the 22-weekers. The article even says the BMA is against stringent guidelines like these. And I give the link specifically so you can form your opinion. There's no call to chide me on interpretations - again, what's the purpose you are trying to achieve with that last statement?

[bublik64]

Oh, and if you would like to bring up my supposed rudeness, you can do so directly. igorlord didn't seem to mind, and understood it was in a joking tone. In any case, his use of quotes here is quite objectionable, so I brought it up to him.

[bublik64]

I read the article I gave the link to. If you found more info, you are welcome to bring it up in the comments. What's the purpose of unfounded accusations about a post in which I clearly said these are my gut feelings? If my feelings bother you that much, you don't have to reply, you know.